Another strawman.
And, as shown in the OP, wrong.
The particular belief under discussion HAS been shown to matter.
Your point would be clearer, if you developed your ideas with a line of logic, rather than just cover your eyes and ears and makes noises to avoid hearing what I say. Convince me of your POV logically, without emotional defensiveness and offensiveness.
Although most scientists are atheist, not all atheists are scientists. The majority of atheists are not. The definition only requires one does not belief in any consciously known god. But beyond that nothing is off the table including unnatural illusions. One would expect to see a departure from science and the rules of science, by most of atheism, by default, since the rules of science are not part of the definition. Science is used like a prop for the irrational atheist.
Memorizing a party line is not the same as inferring the same thing as a scientist. The more one knows the less they realize they know, which any specialist can testify too. Knowing lots creates new questions without answers. The result of memorizing the party line, as absolute, is dogma and blind obedience. This brings emotions and irrationality into the irrational atheist equation, since one is fighting with dogma and not fighting with the calmness of reason. The opposition appears to upset the cart of dogma, which few experts believe is the final word or else they need to retire.
Having faith in science conclusions is not the same as thinking things through, yourself, to come to a logical conclusion. The dogma approach needs the support of the herd, while the second can stand on its own. Science allows for self sufficiency.
The belief in a punitive God or punitive culture causing emotional problems is common to any position accepted as dogma. Dogma does not have the lack of emotions of Mr Spock, but needs emotion for guiding and deterring. Religion may be an easier example to see but the dynamics of the mind extend much further into culture than that.
For example, the black male, is very vulnerable to emotional turbulence; depression, due to diversity and feminine sexism. They are isolated by the liberal concept of diversity, that separates them from successful white mainstream. The liberal push for women over men, adds to their isolation since the male is evil and they can't change that. The die is cast.
If I use reason to expose the dogma scams of atheism and liberalism, I threaten the polarization. I am durable to the assaults I have taken for years because it not about dogma and emotions but a search for true using logic.
A blind empirical study without logical explanation is designed to add emotion to a rational equation. The empirical god of chaos adds a monkey wrench in all points of view including logic, so there is even rational division. Chaos is for dummies because the less you know, the more everything will seem random and subject to chance; god of irrational atheism. One cannot call it that because the definition says this is not true but the action show something else which is allowable as long as the word game is upheld.